This was referenced Feb 20, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

For some time (pre Design System) our recommended multi-input pattern for entering an address has contained two inputs for "Building and street", with the second input having a visually hidden label (as well as visually hidden 1 of 2 and 2 of 2).

This second input is to support users that need to enter a Company name, building name, floor, department as well as their street address.

We are wondering if anyone who has tested this pattern has seen any issues with visually hiding the second label?

This comment has been minimized.

edited

I am struggling too with the hidden label concept - when there is an error in that field we are trying out error messages that reference Building and street (line 2 of 2) as the field descriptor in the message.

Also quite challenging is how to communicate that the second line is optional? (In our service line 1 and postcode are the only required fields).

Research

Open Address UK did some address entry user research - qualitative testing (9 users) of free text box (which they describe as 'one single address field') against multiple fields. The results were mixed: some users preferred free text box, others preferred multiple fields. Users were faster with free text box, but ended up with more errors in the address. They made more mistakes to start with on multiple fields, corrected them as they moved address elements around, and ended up with fewer errors in the end.

The forms they used had some usability errors such as use of placeholders for example text, so those usability errors may have influenced the results.